I think its more than just the players pass rushing. You see all of SF's stunts and alignment changes they do? They switch it up often and get creative. While we just walk up to the line and try a bull rush. Although I did see Clemons with a nice inside spin move, but the OL played it perfectly.

-The Glove- wrote:I think its more than just the players pass rushing. You see all of SF's stunts and alignment changes they do? They switch it up often and get creative. While we just walk up to the line and try a bull rush. Although I did see Clemons with a nice inside spin move, but the OL played it perfectly.

I very much agree with this. I think Bradley is a great motivator of his players and has some nifty schemes but I don't think he calls a good game.

-The Glove- wrote:I think its more than just the players pass rushing. You see all of SF's stunts and alignment changes they do? They switch it up often and get creative. While we just walk up to the line and try a bull rush. Although I did see Clemons with a nice inside spin move, but the OL played it perfectly.

I very much agree with this. I think Bradley is a great motivator of his players and has some nifty schemes but I don't think he calls a good game.

-The Glove- wrote:I think its more than just the players pass rushing. You see all of SF's stunts and alignment changes they do? They switch it up often and get creative. While we just walk up to the line and try a bull rush. Although I did see Clemons with a nice inside spin move, but the OL played it perfectly.

I very much agree with this. I think Bradley is a great motivator of his players and has some nifty schemes but I don't think he calls a good game.

Because we saw nothing but defensive fails when it was Bradley/Mora, and way more success when it became Bradley/Carroll? And yet we still get to watch the same old pre-Carroll soft zone on 3rd and long giving it up easier than a two-dollar hooker?

bestfightstory wrote:I just don't understand how this board attributes any defensive success to Carroll and any defensive failure to Bradley.

Maybe its not always the same people. if so, it's schizoid.

I don't see that at all. Gus Bradley was getting a lot of credit around here earlier in the season.

From reading you on this board, you seem to key in on posters who you vehemently disagree with and gloss over the rest. At least thats how your posts come off. That might be why you think this.

Once again, its the White Knight. Hey, man. You have no idea who on this board I have relationships with and what the nature of those relationships are. Your analysis of me is worthless. And quite unwelcome.

"Some people here have been groomed to accept mediocrity and lame ducks, I'm on board with the vibrato!" -SouthSoundHawk "BFS is kicking ass in here." -kearly (8/9/2013)

GeekHawk wrote:Because we saw nothing but defensive fails when it was Bradley/Mora, and way more success when it became Bradley/Carroll? And yet we still get to watch the same old pre-Carroll soft zone on 3rd and long giving it up easier than a two-dollar hooker?

Well, lets both assume you are only speaking for yourself when you say 'we' but doesn't Pete have some ownership for the failings on third and long or is that exclusively Bradley's department?

"Some people here have been groomed to accept mediocrity and lame ducks, I'm on board with the vibrato!" -SouthSoundHawk "BFS is kicking ass in here." -kearly (8/9/2013)

GeekHawk wrote:Because we saw nothing but defensive fails when it was Bradley/Mora, and way more success when it became Bradley/Carroll? And yet we still get to watch the same old pre-Carroll soft zone on 3rd and long giving it up easier than a two-dollar hooker?

Well, lets both assume you are only speaking for yourself when you say 'we' but doesn't Pete have some ownership for the failings on third and long or is that exclusively Bradley's department?

I don't think it's Bradleys department one bit. Pete runs the defense, just like he did at USC.

Carroll doesn't call the blitzes or pressures during the game. I'm sure he is heavily involved in designing the plays as well as deciding on personnel packages. However, I don't think he's calling a blitz into Wagner's headset, that's Bradley's job. Bradley was also doing that when Mora was here as well. To my very limited eye, it appears that Bradley starts every game out very conservative, no matter the opponent. He'll only rush 4, even on third and longs, until at least the 2nd quarter. Only then do I start seeing some exotic blitzes, which increase as the game goes along. Now, that's not necessarily a bad philosophy to have in general. But I do think that against some teams you need to come out aggressive from the beginning. You can't be so predictable.

Pittsburgh is a team that seems the opposite to me. There are games when I see them blitzing from the first snap from every direction on seemingly every down. Their ability to be unpredictable is what has kept them elite for so long IMO. They don't necessarily have better talent than our defense, but they damn sure have a better play caller.

kmedic wrote:Carroll doesn't call the blitzes or pressures during the game. I'm sure he is heavily involved in designing the plays as well as deciding on personnel packages. However, I don't think he's calling a blitz into Wagner's headset, that's Bradley's job. Bradley was also doing that when Mora was here as well. To my very limited eye, it appears that Bradley starts every game out very conservative, no matter the opponent. He'll only rush 4, even on third and longs, until at least the 2nd quarter. Only then do I start seeing some exotic blitzes, which increase as the game goes along. Now, that's not necessarily a bad philosophy to have in general. But I do think that against some teams you need to come out aggressive from the beginning. You can't be so predictable.

Pittsburgh is a team that seems the opposite to me. There are games when I see them blitzing from the first snap from every direction on seemingly every down. Their ability to be unpredictable is what has kept them elite for so long IMO. They don't necessarily have better talent than our defense, but they damn sure have a better play caller.

kmedic wrote:Carroll doesn't call the blitzes or pressures during the game. I'm sure he is heavily involved in designing the plays as well as deciding on personnel packages. However, I don't think he's calling a blitz into Wagner's headset, that's Bradley's job. Bradley was also doing that when Mora was here as well. To my very limited eye, it appears that Bradley starts every game out very conservative, no matter the opponent. He'll only rush 4, even on third and longs, until at least the 2nd quarter. Only then do I start seeing some exotic blitzes, which increase as the game goes along. Now, that's not necessarily a bad philosophy to have in general. But I do think that against some teams you need to come out aggressive from the beginning. You can't be so predictable.

Pittsburgh is a team that seems the opposite to me. There are games when I see them blitzing from the first snap from every direction on seemingly every down. Their ability to be unpredictable is what has kept them elite for so long IMO. They don't necessarily have better talent than our defense, but they damn sure have a better play caller.

Well. The Carroll/Bradley defensive authorship question is an important and interesting one to me. I dont have the answer. I dont think anyone here does either. But it seems when our defense is achieving I see Carroll routinely praised. When our defense shows flaws I see Bradley criticized.

As to your observations. The way we have started games 'scheme wise' has been perfect in my mind. We have scored first and had the lead in 8 of 8 games this year.

"Some people here have been groomed to accept mediocrity and lame ducks, I'm on board with the vibrato!" -SouthSoundHawk "BFS is kicking ass in here." -kearly (8/9/2013)

kmedic wrote:Carroll doesn't call the blitzes or pressures during the game. I'm sure he is heavily involved in designing the plays as well as deciding on personnel packages. However, I don't think he's calling a blitz into Wagner's headset, that's Bradley's job. Bradley was also doing that when Mora was here as well. To my very limited eye, it appears that Bradley starts every game out very conservative, no matter the opponent. He'll only rush 4, even on third and longs, until at least the 2nd quarter. Only then do I start seeing some exotic blitzes, which increase as the game goes along. Now, that's not necessarily a bad philosophy to have in general. But I do think that against some teams you need to come out aggressive from the beginning. You can't be so predictable.

Pittsburgh is a team that seems the opposite to me. There are games when I see them blitzing from the first snap from every direction on seemingly every down. Their ability to be unpredictable is what has kept them elite for so long IMO. They don't necessarily have better talent than our defense, but they damn sure have a better play caller.

Well. The Carroll/Bradley defensive authorship question is an important and interesting one to me. I dont have the answer. I dont think anyone here does either. But it seems when our defense is achieving I see Carroll routinely praised. When our defense shows flaws I see Bradley criticized.

As to your observations. The way we have started games 'scheme wise' has been perfect in my mind. We have scored first and had the lead in 8 of 8 games this year.

I mostly agree with you on this and about the blame going to Bradley and the praise going to Carroll, but Bradley has been getting quite a bit of praise here this year as well. In the last couple of weeks there have been a few threads talking about him as a future head coach, i'm assuming because of the work he's done with our defense.

I'm not an X's and O's guy. Never have been, never will. I respect the opinions of those here that are because I know they have put the time and intelligence in to understand schemes and levels of breaking down plays that I simply will never understand. What I do understand is chemistry and intensity. This team is oozing the former and has brilliant - but fleeting - sparks of the latter. I may not understand terminology or schemes but I have excellent vision for when my team plays with that fierce competitive level of intensity. We've seen our defense play that way at home, but too often (regardless of what Era/Coach/System/Players in place) on the road, they simply don't bring that same level of intensity like we saw the 49ers do tonight on the road.

Why is that?

It can't be just pass rush. There's got to be more to it than that. Certainly, having a dominant pass rush makes everybody's job on defense that much easier, I get that, but there's more of a psychological layer here that I'm trying to define and I'll be damned if I can't pin-point it 36 years later.

It's not like they are walking out to the games on the road with their heads down. Anybody watching Inside The Seahawks each week can see how fired up Robinson and Bryant and some others are getting their fellow teammates. ("Who's got my back!" (("I've got your back!!")) "Who's got my back!" (("I've got your back!!")) "Who's got my back!" (("I've got your back!!")) and so on... And yet, 8 times out of 10 on the road, there's this collective, fire, intensity, DESIRE to beat the man opposite you...Missing.

We all know this defense has SICK potential. Not just decent, but SICK potential. To be even better than the 49ers defense one day. Our secondary is second-to-none. Big, physical beasts that usually like to lay the wood.

I'll definitely agree that scheme and lack of a consistent pass rush is part of the problem. But there's another element and that's WILL. No matter the obstacle, the opponent, the innate desire in each and every player suiting up for us to salivate to get out there and DRILL their opponent into submission. One of my neighbors said to me today..."The Seahawks defense simply looked like they didn't want to be there."

I think it has a lot to do with opponent. I think we saw almost all of what you're talking about from our defense, on the road, at Carolina. Our D was physically and mentally dominating the Panthers that day.

I would say our D also was just as dominating against Skelton and the Cards as the 49ers were. It wasnt until Kolb came in taht they really moved the ball on us.

Lastly, i would say that success breeds swagger and intensity. If youre getting your ass kicked all over the field like we were against Detroit yesterday youre not going to see the D amped up like they were when they were kicking Carolina's ass all over the field.

JSeahawks wrote:I think it has a lot to do with opponent. I think we saw almost all of what you're talking about from our defense, on the road, at Carolina. Our D was physically and mentally dominating the Panthers that day.

I would say our D also was just as dominating against Skelton and the Cards as the 49ers were. It wasnt until Kolb came in taht they really moved the ball on us.

So those two games would count for the 8 out of the 10 I mentioned then. Great, now I might as well not even watch the last three away games.

I definitely agree that mental focus and intensity has a lot to do with success, and sure a lot of that goes on the players but I think the coaches can help create "intensity" by knowing when to be aggressive and when to dial it down on the play calling. I think that Carroll and Bradley have too much faith in just rushing their front four, particularly on the road. IMO there needs to be not only more blitzes and pressures but they also need to comeat unpredictable times. There is a definite chess match that goes on every Sunday between offensive and defensive coordinators. I think Bradley (or whoever is calling the plays for us) is not doing a very good job in that aspect. I will say that there have been some brilliant games called though in the Carroll era. The one that comes to mind is the Chicago game two years ago when we sacked Cutler 8 times. That was a game where blitzes and pressure seemingly came from every direction almost every down. We even had a sack for a safety! It was a masterpiece of creating pressure with a front 7 that wasn't nearly as talented as the front 7 we have this year. That proves that intragame coaching and calling the right plays can make a difference.

bestfightstory wrote:I just don't understand how this board attributes any defensive success to Carroll and any defensive failure to Bradley.

Maybe its not always the same people. if so, it's schizoid.

I don't see that at all. Gus Bradley was getting a lot of credit around here earlier in the season.

From reading you on this board, you seem to key in on posters who you vehemently disagree with and gloss over the rest. At least thats how your posts come off. That might be why you think this.

Once again, its the White Knight. Hey, man. You have no idea who on this board I have relationships with and what the nature of those relationships are. Your analysis of me is worthless. And quite unwelcome.

Again with the "You don't know who you're talking to" bullying? Give it a rest, guy. I get it. You think you're above reproach and some sort of deity. That's cute. I however don't care who you are or who you know. I judge everyone I read based off their posts and contribution to the board. Not who's grandson you are. So far, all I've seen from you is taunting your own fans, ripping people for thinking different than you, intimidation tactics, oh, and you getting banned for doing said things. Give me a break, dude. Focus on the Hawks, get over this you feeling the need to tell off other posters every time you dont agree with them. And yes, I have done it to you. Funny how you can't take your own medicine.

As for your intitial comment. Are you new or something? Since the dawn of time, offensive and defensive coordinators have been the go to scape goat for a team's struggles over the head coach. Because it's a lot easier to say "we need to replace that one assistant!" than it is begin the discussion of replacing your head coach/starting everything over. It's the same reason qb's get an inordinate amount of blame. Easier to think it's one guy holding you back, as opposed to many. A football fan of your status knows this. And only acts otherwise when criticising others on a message board for saying things they do not agree with. Come on, man.

as good as the 49ers looked tonight on D, and let it be clear, they are good on D, one thing to keep in mind is, Skelton is HORRENDIOUS, they,re O line is not good, 7 yards rushing, 7? as good as they are , and that was a great performance on the road, take nothing away from the whiners, that was a very bad offense from top to bottom tonight.... skelton is possibly the worst QB in the league, talk about errant passes from RW, good lord did you see some of those throws.....

Funny my take-away was very different. During and after the game I was thinking about how during the first half the Seahawks OFFENSE were dominating that 49ers great defense. Tons of perfectly played long balls and the only hung stopping 21 pts on the board were droops and a no-call PI. So I am going to sleep feeling great about Seahawks offense from the past two weeks and knowing the defense will be back soon....

GeekHawk wrote:Because we saw nothing but defensive fails when it was Bradley/Mora, and way more success when it became Bradley/Carroll? And yet we still get to watch the same old pre-Carroll soft zone on 3rd and long giving it up easier than a two-dollar hooker?

Well, lets both assume you are only speaking for yourself when you say 'we' but doesn't Pete have some ownership for the failings on third and long or is that exclusively Bradley's department?

I don't think it's Bradleys department one bit. Pete runs the defense, just like he did at USC.

This is not correct. At USC Pete called the defensive plays. He's not doing that in Seattle.

bestfightstory wrote:[quote="GeekHawk"]Because we saw nothing but defensive fails when it was Bradley/Mora, and way more success when it became Bradley/Carroll? And yet we still get to watch the same old pre-Carroll soft zone on 3rd and long giving it up easier than a two-dollar hooker?

Well, lets both assume you are only speaking for yourself when you say 'we' but doesn't Pete have some ownership for the failings on third and long or is that exclusively Bradley's department?

I don't think it's Bradleys department one bit. Pete runs the defense, just like he did at USC.

This is not correct. At USC Pete called the defensive plays. He's not doing that in Seattle.[/quote]

How do you know this? Honestly I want to know. Is there a link or something where I can find it?

Yep, that's a good start. That's how they consistently get it done with the front four. Then we move to the linebackers, who are bigger, just as athletic and more physical...not to mention BETTER in pass coverage. Wagner and KJ come within shouting distance, but Hill can't be mentioned in the same sentence.

Our guys can go a long way by continuing to hone their skils with experience and playing with a bit more gap discipline, but SF's horses (especially on the DL) are better. Irvin has a high-motor and is fast, but that advantage is mostly nullified away from home. Irvin would do well to pack some more muscle on his frame, and there's actually a lot of room for that. Clemons is much more of a total package than Irvin right now, but he can't consistently get home without any help.

GeekHawk wrote:Because we saw nothing but defensive fails when it was Bradley/Mora, and way more success when it became Bradley/Carroll? And yet we still get to watch the same old pre-Carroll soft zone on 3rd and long giving it up easier than a two-dollar hooker?

Well, lets both assume you are only speaking for yourself when you say 'we' but doesn't Pete have some ownership for the failings on third and long or is that exclusively Bradley's department?

I don't think it's Bradleys department one bit. Pete runs the defense, just like he did at USC.

Can you confirm this with a link .... or is it just your opinion? Im curious.

Youth has to be part of the explanation. The 49ers have a veteran unit across the board, and we have a bunch of young guns. The former is likely better at maintaining discipline and focus. Also, I think our defense gets in a "play not to lose" mindset once in awhile.

rainger wrote:We do just fine for two downs with attack and every third and long Bradley puts us in soft zone abandons the man coverage and the good QB's pick apart the holes in the zone.

Yep.

For some reason Bradley (or Carroll.. whoever) takes the foot off the gas on 3rd and long. I get that blitzing can leave you open for a big play if it doesn't get there in time, but having the QB get 8 seconds to throw doesn't help either.

Though the Seahawks have a much more aggressive defensive playing style from the Holmgren days, they just seem paralyzed with fear of the big play. Same with the offense making the big mistake. Yet both units have given them up so is the caution worth the lost opportunity?

I always get lost when folks talk about the QB needing to trust his WRs but it is my opinion that Pete is trying to minimize silly mental lapses due to inexperience/youth and by holding on so tight, puts his players into the mind set of disciplined play above all else. As he grows to trust his core players and they in turn trust one another, the leash will loosen. Just idle speculation on my part but would have loved sitting in the meeting where he, John and Paul laid out the vision of what it would take to get to a Superbowl contending team.

There's a method to his madness and I think the playing style of both the defense and offense changes over time as he and his players get to the next level of what he envisions for this team. How close is the team to his expectations? That is something I would like to know without the coach speak.

JSeahawks wrote:I think it has a lot to do with opponent. I think we saw almost all of what you're talking about from our defense, on the road, at Carolina. Our D was physically and mentally dominating the Panthers that day.

I would say our D also was just as dominating against Skelton and the Cards as the 49ers were. It wasnt until Kolb came in taht they really moved the ball on us.

Lastly, i would say that success breeds swagger and intensity. If youre getting your ass kicked all over the field like we were against Detroit yesterday youre not going to see the D amped up like they were when they were kicking Carolina's ass all over the field.

I think the genesis of this thread is rooted in precisely what you're talking about, J.

First off, we still have a very, very good defense. No, it's not quite on par with San Francisco's defense yet, but the SF defense is more seasoned by far, so that plays into it. And it's probably better coached.

But consider that our defense did pretty damn well against Arizona in Week 1, and it fell apart when Kolb came in (and if I recall correctly, we started playing zone). As it turns out, stopping the Arizona offense really shouldn't be too complicated. SF performed better at that job than we did for a couple of reasons... they got the Cards in the middle of the season after the unpredictability of Week 1 was long gone, and they've got a better pass rush.

And now SF's performance on D is compounded by the fact that our D just laid a bit of an egg in Detroit. When lining those two games up side by side, all of a sudden you get the big "OMG our D is light-years behind the SF D!" type of posts, but it's not an appropriate comparison. The 49ers were playing a struggling Cards team while we were playing a desperate Lions team (again, a playoff team from last season) with a much, MUCH better offense.

Accounting for opponent, our defense isn't as far behind SF's as Week 8 made it seem. We've seen the Seattle defense put up stellar performances this season, both on the road and at home (though home is better, obviously). And I fully expect further stellar performances from them, with continued efforts to improve the pass rush and correct the 3rd down snafus.

I finally took some time to watch the first half of the Lions game.... I have to say, our defense definitely looked like they were asleep....listless and a half step slow in their thinking as well as their actual movements.

I agree with Vols take of the state of the defenses. Sometimes it is when you play a team. You get more tape, injuries occur and struggling teams rebound while hot teams cool off. Folks look at how the Lions got beat by the 9ers earlier, how they should have lost at home to the Rams and think that was the same team we played on Sunday. But what about the win the Lions had against the Eagles in Philly.

Folks are looking at the Jets and how they got dominated by the 9ers and figure they should be a peace of cake in a week. You set yourself up for a letdown. If you look at the Vikings vs Tampa, you figure the Vikings will have a big problem passing. May not be reality.

The Packers, Patriots and Cowboys could be totally different results if played later in the season. All teams are evolving as the season progresses (either positively or negatively). Cardinals looked bad last night but I would put it out of my mind when the Seahawks play them.

drdiags wrote:I agree with Vols take of the state of the defenses. Sometimes it is when you play a team. You get more tape, injuries occur and struggling teams rebound while hot teams cool off. Folks look at how the Lions got beat by the 9ers earlier, how they should have lost at home to the Rams and think that was the same team we played on Sunday. But what about the win the Lions had against the Eagles in Philly.

Folks are looking at the Jets and how they got dominated by the 9ers and figure they should be a peace of cake in a week. You set yourself up for a letdown. If you look at the Vikings vs Tampa, you figure the Vikings will have a big problem passing. May not be reality.

The Packers, Patriots and Cowboys could be totally different results if played later in the season. All teams are evolving as the season progresses (either positively or negatively). Cardinals looked bad last night but I would put it out of my mind when the Seahawks play them.

....

Last edited by VaSfan4life on Tue Oct 30, 2012 9:59 am, edited 1 time in total.

drdiags wrote:I agree with Vols take of the state of the defenses. Sometimes it is when you play a team. You get more tape, injuries occur and struggling teams rebound while hot teams cool off. Folks look at how the Lions got beat by the 9ers earlier, how they should have lost at home to the Rams and think that was the same team we played on Sunday. But what about the win the Lions had against the Eagles in Philly.

Folks are looking at the Jets and how they got dominated by the 9ers and figure they should be a peace of cake in a week. You set yourself up for a letdown. If you look at the Vikings vs Tampa, you figure the Vikings will have a big problem passing. May not be reality.

The Packers, Patriots and Cowboys could be totally different results if played later in the season. All teams are evolving as the season progresses (either positively or negatively). Cardinals looked bad last night but I would put it out of my mind when the Seahawks play them.

so by your logic we shouldn't count our Loss to the Viking because they were playing better then than they are now... and you guys are getting a much easier game at home against a struggling team.. while we had to go to the Vikings house to play and up and coming team...

Sounds ridiculous... its the NFL we can't pick and chose who we play and when we get to play them we just play them when the date comes

Jazzhawk wrote:I finally took some time to watch the first half of the Lions game.... I have to say, our defense definitely looked like they were asleep....listless and a half step slow in their thinking as well as their actual movements.

I didn't see that. I saw a defensive that went into the game with the game plan of having a safety in the box to take away the run, playing man on man on the outside, and soft zone in the middle.

The fatal flaw with this gameplan was our D Line getting ZERO pressure on Stafford, which allowed his TE's and slot receiver (Young) to get open often.

Then we had to send blitzers to get pressure, which meant more open space in the middle. Thus the snowball effect of giving up 350 yards passing and three passing TD's.

Moral of the story? Our defense is average at best if our front four D linemen can't get pressure on the QB.

VaSfan4life wrote:so by your logic we shouldn't count our Loss to the Viking because they were playing better then than they are now... and you guys are getting a much easier game at home against a struggling team.. while we had to go to the Vikings house to play and up and coming team...

Sounds ridiculous... its the NFL we can't pick and chose who we play and when we get to play them we just play them when the date comes

Not at all. Not trying to minimize anything your sacred 9ers are doing. Speaking only about my team that I care about. I am saying that I do not judge how my team plays against a common opponent against the greatness that is the 9ers. Please just go away. I care nothing about your team nor do I fear them, envy them, hate your coach or the players. So don't put words in my mouth. You are a legend in your own mind.

You are looking for a sleight and none was intended. I only care about my team not yours. Okay. And I would never discredit another team's accomplishment just to feel good about my own team. Are we clear now?